Loopholes and missing links in protein modeling

This paper provides an unbiased comparison of four commercially available programs for loop sampling, Prime, Modeler, ICM, and Sybyl, each of which uses a different modeling protocol. The study assesses the quality of results and examines the relative strengths and weaknesses of each method. The set...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Protein science 2007-09, Vol.16 (9), p.1999-2012
Hauptverfasser: Rossi, Karen A., Weigelt, Carolyn A., Nayeem, Akbar, Krystek, Stanley R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This paper provides an unbiased comparison of four commercially available programs for loop sampling, Prime, Modeler, ICM, and Sybyl, each of which uses a different modeling protocol. The study assesses the quality of results and examines the relative strengths and weaknesses of each method. The set of loops to be modeled varied in length from 4–12 amino acids. The approaches used for loop modeling can be classified into two methodologies: ab initio loop generation (Modeler and Prime) and database searches (Sybyl and ICM). Comparison of the modeled loops to the native structures was used to determine the accuracy of each method. All of the protocols returned similar results for short loop lengths (four to six residues), but as loop length increased, the quality of the results varied among the programs. Prime generated loops with RMSDs
ISSN:0961-8368
1469-896X
DOI:10.1110/ps.072887807